Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Beyond that, the description and schema add useful context: console_doc restores are restricted to platform maintainers, and restoring 'changes working content' which must be committed separately. This enriches the annotation with operational detail and does not contradict it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the important maintainer restriction. No filler or redundant wording is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The combination of the description, the rich 100%-covered schema, and the annotations gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the lack of higher-level guidance about when to restore versus using related tools like diff or load_deck, and no mention of the response, but these are secondary given the schema's completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters. The tool description does not add deeper meaning about the parameters or their relationships, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Restore') on specific resource kinds ('deck', 'skill', and for maintainers 'console documents') from a saved version. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like load_deck or update_deck.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as diff, load_deck, update_deck, or commit. The schema notes 'commit separately,' but the description itself gives no context about workflow steps or when restoration is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.